CHI DONG EUN AND ANOTHER v. KIM YOUNG JUN AND OTHERS

HCA 1880/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1880 OF 2015

________________________

________________________

_______________

DECISION
_______________

1.  This is the 3^rd application by the 2^nd plaintiff (“Zhi”) for an interlocutory injunction against the 18^th defendant (“SMG”) to stop it from holding an AGM on 4 September 2015 (see the Decisions of L Chan J dated 7 August 2015 and Au-Yeung J dated 17 August 2015).  The 1^st plaintiff (“Chi”) is the son of Zhi.

2.  Two days ago, this court dealt with another action by Zhi.  It is purportedly a derivative action by him on behalf of SMG.  That action has been stuck out against some of the defendants and stayed against the remainder due to the absence of leave from the Cayman Islands Grand Court sanctioning the derivative action.  It appears from the authorities relied upon by SMG that there is yet another Decision by G Lam J dated 19 March 2015 dealing with another action of Zhi against, inter alia, SMG.  The amount of judicial resources spent on Zhi’s actions is breathtaking.

3.  This 3^rd application is blatantly an abuse of process of the court.  That aside, there are too many reasons to dismiss it without the need for SMG to answer it with evidence.  I need only mention the lack of any proper ground to suggest that Zhi or Chi will suffer any irreparable harm which cannot be adequately compensated with damages if the injunction sought is not granted.  Although it appears that this action has been formulated as a derivative action on behalf of SMG (the same applies to the action before Au-Yeung J), it is apparent from the submissions of the plaintiffs that they are seeking to ventilate certain personal grievances against some of the personal defendants in this action.   

4.  Further, I have great difficulty in understanding what cause of action Chi may have in these proceedings.  It is said that he is the beneficiary of a trust which is entitled to certain contractual rights.  I am unable to see how such entitlement gives rise to a cause of action in these proceedings.

5.  In the premises, I have no hesitation in dismissing this application with costs.